BigD
Well-Known Member
Does this mean they are bringing Lickliter in to talk to the kids they already have..........ROFLMAO!
Last edited:
Cezar Down to Four
- Thread starter Hawkeyefan
- Start date
Does this mean they are bringing Lickliter in to talk to the kids they already have..........ROFLMAO!
Iowafarmgirl
Banned
Can you explain the logic that lead you to believe that?
tm3308
Well-Known Member
It's just a reference to the Gatens Thread.
I'm not saying Iowafarmgirl likes to make threads about herself, but she is the reason why this thread isn't about Cezar.
Iowafarmgirl
Banned
I don't think this thread is about me. It is about Basketball recruiting...almost no one is talking about me, and I certainly am not talking about myself. Granted, most of the comments are as a result of my opinions, but I don't see why that's a problem: I like giving my takes, and you guys apparantly like responding to them.
(f.y.i., that is not James Van Der Beek in my avatar. His name is Jules De Martino, and he doesn't look anything like VDB)
DP5555
Well-Known Member
Van Der Beek... is that his name? It sure looks like him in the picture (must be those hippin shades). Just reminds of Dawson's Creek or whatever the hell that horrible show was called.
I'm not arguing your right to share your opinion. This is a message board. Most people on here enjoy sharing their opinion. I just find that your opinion is typically annoying that's all. Fair enough.
I'm not arguing your right to share your opinion. This is a message board. Most people on here enjoy sharing their opinion. I just find that your opinion is typically annoying that's all. Fair enough.
uofihawkInation
Well-Known Member
I don't see the reason for the hate she takes on here. She has a passion for Iowa athletics just as the 98% of everyone else on the board and she likes to share her input. If you don't like her posts you can skip over them and still understand what is being talked about. I think she brings a different view than what many people have and in recruiting that's a good thing to have. Even if I don't agree with her I still recognize why she believes it.
Basketball and Politicians? How about small business owners? Think any of them fudge the books? What about soldiers? Think any of them procure goods that don't originally belong to them, or fudge reports regarding field encounters? What about preachers? Think any of them have their hand in the coffer? What about police? Nuff said. What about teachers? Any of them fudging their grading based on favoritism? What about the average taxpayer? Any of them fudging their deductions?
Going by IowaFarmGirl's logic we are all dirty.
Do yourself a favor and google "hasty generalization."
Going by IowaFarmGirl's logic we are all dirty.
Do yourself a favor and google "hasty generalization."
Iowafarmgirl
Banned
At the risk of making this thread about myself (which ironiclly I found I did in the post where I said I wasn't), I won't respond to this except to say that I think you may be right with your second to last sentence, but are dead wrong with the last.
All I know is that I hope we curb stomp Sparty on Thursday.
You already have made it about yourself. It hasn't been about Cezar down to four teams for 80% of this thread. Keep up the good work.
oifdeserthawk
Well-Known Member
Pretty impressive isn't it?
Prove it. As I see it, you are claiming all college basketball coaches are dirty. However, your sample size would only be the coaches that have been caught. Which is an extremely small sample size compared to over 300 division one programs.
Hence, the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.
Iowafarmgirl
Banned
Well, you just are not reading what I am saying. I never said all coaches were dirty. I said that basketball recruiting was dirty, and made everyone involved APPEAR dirty. I have repeated this several times.
Also, I am not basing this one a small sample size and using it to generalize the whole population. I never once addressed the people who have been caught. Again, at the trouble of repeating myself for the third time, I based my conclusion on the following facts:
1. Coaches stand to get plenty of money for recruiting good players
2. Coaches stand to get fired if they don't
3. There is almost no oversight on recruiting from the NCAA
4. Even when you do get caught, there is no real punishment
Sorry if I sound cynical, but I don't think there are that many boy scouts out there who are willing to stick to the rules in a consequence-free environment when millions of dollars are on the line. I'm honest enough to admit that I probably wouldn't.
spliff45
Well-Known Member
oifdeserthawk
Well-Known Member
You realize every time you "repeat" yourself, you are only furthering yourself from the discussion that was initially taking place, and thus proving us all right. That you are annoying, rarely know what you are talking about, and hi-jack threads like it is your job.
Are you kidding me? College Basketball recruiting is so shady that grass can't grow under it. College BB coaches make Boxing promoters look ethical for Christ's sake.
Okay, so you have 2 choices, (1) You are backing away from your original statement, which does not include any qualifier regarding particular basketball coaches, but refers to all college basketball coaches, which means you should just say, "Okay, I overstated my point."
Or, (2) you are trying to move to some form of equivocation, going from your original statement to about all college basketball coaches, with no qualifier to "there is a perception that college basketball coaches are less ethical than boxing promoters."
Beyond the fact that nobody is going to let you get away with this equivocation, there is only one way to prove your second point and that is by finding consensus to your perception. Obviously, you have not done this.
But more impressive is your failed logic based on a number of predicates that are not directly related and don't stand up to any form of logical scrutiny. Predicates need to lead to a necessary conclusion. These are all a bunch of circumstantial claims. Are they reasonable? Sure. But by no means do they lead to a logical conclusion. One could easily offer these premises.
1. Coaches stand to earn a lot of money if they keep their jobs.
2. Coaches stand to get fired if they are caught cheating.
3. There have been coaches who have been fired when they were caught cheating.
4. Hence, coaches will not cheat so as to continue earning money at the their job.
See, how we can do that? The only difference is that my first three premises lead to a conclusion in 4. However, it is not a logical conclusion, because it fails to take into account the possible range of alternatives.
Beyond this, the vast majority of coaches actually do not sign great classes, nor do they win. So, it would be more reasonable to say that the majority of coaches are not unethical.
Seriously, I beat you down over and over. As many will attest, this is one of my favorite pastimes. Just accept your loss and move on.
Okay, so you have 2 choices, (1) You are backing away from your original statement, which does not include any qualifier regarding particular basketball coaches, but refers to all college basketball coaches, which means you should just say, "Okay, I overstated my point."
Or, (2) you are trying to move to some form of equivocation, going from your original statement to about all college basketball coaches, with no qualifier to "there is a perception that college basketball coaches are less ethical than boxing promoters."
Beyond the fact that nobody is going to let you get away with this equivocation, there is only one way to prove your second point and that is by finding consensus to your perception. Obviously, you have not done this.
But more impressive is your failed logic based on a number of predicates that are not directly related and don't stand up to any form of logical scrutiny. Predicates need to lead to a necessary conclusion. These are all a bunch of circumstantial claims. Are they reasonable? Sure. But by no means do they lead to a logical conclusion. One could easily offer these premises.
1. Coaches stand to earn a lot of money if they keep their jobs.
2. Coaches stand to get fired if they are caught cheating.
3. There have been coaches who have been fired when they were caught cheating.
4. Hence, coaches will not cheat so as to continue earning money at the their job.
See, how we can do that? The only difference is that my first three premises lead to a conclusion in 4. However, it is not a logical conclusion, because it fails to take into account the possible range of alternatives.
Beyond this, the vast majority of coaches actually do not sign great classes, nor do they win. So, it would be more reasonable to say that the majority of coaches are not unethical.
Seriously, I beat you down over and over. As many will attest, this is one of my favorite pastimes. Just accept your loss and move on.
